Are you confident in congress's competence?

Xerographica said:

... you have a huge problem if you're not willing to try and persuade the American taxpayers to allocate their taxes accordingly.

Click to expand...

I am trying to convince "taxpayers" on this forum that they should support progressive ideals that suit the general public. But, let's recognize that we are all citizens concerned for the mutual well-being of one another. Otherwise the country fails entirely if we all play "beggar thy neighbor", which applies internally with countries as well as externally as regards other countries.

Creating a class of Plutocrats has been the cause of the ultimate demise of most such civilizations since Roman times. If that is what Americans want, then they should know they are on the path to self-destruction.

History is on my side in that call ...

Xerographica said:

First... who in the world are you to say that I've overvalued Frank's productivity?

Click to expand...

Think what you like. I give up.

Moving right along ...

My answer to the OP analogy is that if I know the brain surgeon tends to mishandle brains, end up charging more than what he/she claimed procedures were going to cost, tried to force people to get brain surgeries who didn't actually need them- then I might just seek a second, third, or fourth opinion...I might take my chances in a different surgery center altogether.
The problem is that finding a brain surgeon (spelled politician) who isn't like this is like finding an alligator that might make a good and loving pet. There may be one somewhere out there, but I've never seen it...
Actually that's not a fair comparison. There are some very loving alligators on youtube...

How can we trust the competency of a group of people who are more about showmanship and making blatant false promises and then lying about those promises when they don't deliver to our faces??

Ntharotep said:

How can we trust the competency of a group of people who are more about showmanship and making blatant false promises and then lying about those promises when they don't deliver to our faces?

Click to expand...

You can't, so why do we indeed even listen to them?

For as long as Americans remain "crazed" or "impressed" by anyone able to amass huge amounts of money, not much will happen. The Trumps of this country are and will remain our "heroes". As PT Barnum once said, "A sucker is born every minute."

The only way to change the political makeup of a state or the national legislature is to change electorate mentality, thus changing the manner in which they vote. Progressives in America have been trying to do this for a donkey's age, and getting nowhere.

Though, in fact, about 15% of the HofR is constituted of members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest single grouping there. Only one member of the CPC is a Senator. A guy by the name of Bernie Sanders ...

PS: Worthy of noting - The Progressive Promise

Congress + competence?

Contradiction in terms.

Lafayette said:

Which means also that the increased revenues - particularly at the lower income levels - are spent upon expanded consumption by workers, which means further that the economy grows.

Click to expand...

I thought of you when I read this...

"One aspect often overlooked is the negative economic implications fully autonomous cars might have. The top benefit industry stakeholders cite regarding the development of fully autonomous cars is the reduction of car crashes that will occur if they reach the mass market. However, reducing the number of accidents will significantly hurt some industries. For example, auto repair shops will no longer be repairing cars after accidents because accidents would be significantly reduced. Similarly, health clinics will no longer be caring for those injured in accidents. While there is an apparent benefit from the reduction of car crashes and their associated fatalities, there are also many industries that cater to victims of car crashes and crashed cars themselves. These workers could quickly become displaced if fully autonomous cars hit the mass market and the number of accidents declines significantly." - John Greenough, Government to invest $4 billion in fully autonomous cars

Are you going to be happy or sad when there are far fewer accidents?

Xerographica said:

While there is an apparent benefit from the reduction of car crashes and their associated fatalities, there are also many industries that cater to victims of car crashes and crashed cars themselves. These workers could quickly become displaced if fully autonomous cars hit the mass market and the number of accidents declines significantly."

Click to expand...

What would you say is the benefit, if yours was one of the lives "saved" by autonomous driving, from a deadly car accident? (Or even one where you were not killed but permanently maimed?)

The fact that "your life" was saved, was the benefit worth the consequence that some others were reorientated towards different jobs?

Those poor, poor people working at funeral homes and graveyards. How sad, how sad ...

Lafayette said:

What would you say is the benefit, if yours was one of the lives "saved" by autonomous driving, from a deadly car accident? (Or even one where you were not killed but permanently maimed?)

The fact that "your life" was saved, was the benefit worth the consequence that some others were reorientated towards different jobs?

Those poor, poor people working at funeral homes and graveyards. How sad, how sad ...

Click to expand...

Let's say that the people working at funeral homes didn't lose their jobs. They weren't laid off despite the fact that there was a significant drop in the demand for funeral services. Clearly these workers would benefit from being paid.... but what about all the customers who had to pay higher prices for funeral services as a direct result of the funeral homes wasting money by employing unnecessary workers?

Benefit: workers get to keep their jobs, even though their jobs are't needed
Cost: customers have to pay higher prices for funeral services

Is the total benefit greater than the total cost? A few people get a big benefit... which you see... but many people pay a significant cost... which you don't see. It's a given that the cost to consumers is much larger than the benefit of the workers.

Right now you support the minimum wage. In fact, I'm sure that you want it to be raised. You see the benefit of paying workers more money... but you don't see the cost of forcing everybody, including these same workers, to pay higher prices for the things that they want.

Nobody is only a producer. Every producer is also a consumer. Being able to consume is the very reason that people make the effort to produce.

Poverty will cease to exist as soon as you, and all the other liberal economists, learn to focus entirely on the interests of the consumer.

Consumers have incredibly diverse interests. In other words... demand is incredibly diverse. Once you liberals stop disregarding demand... it won't be such a problem when one door closes for a worker because there will be many doors that are open.

If we eliminated the minimum wage then it's entirely possible that many workers will be a dime a dozen. It might sound bad until you realize that this is the very same reason that many American manufacturers made the effort and took the massive risk of moving their production all the way to China. And what happened to the wages of workers in China? Chinese workers are no longer a dime a dozen.

People in China weren't lifted out of poverty as the result of government intervention. In fact, government intervention was the very reason that people in China were poor in the first place. It was only in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping began to reduce government intervention, that people were lifted out of poverty. They were lifted out of poverty because the demand for their labor began to increase. Why did the demand for their labor increase? Because the cost of their labor accurately reflected the fact that China had too many workers and too few jobs.

China, just like the US, still has lots of government intervention. This prevents supply from effectively responding to the diversity of demand. But once we eliminated the minimum wage and other barriers to entry... then workers would be better protected by the inherent diversity of demand.

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

Xerographica said:

Clearly these workers would benefit from being paid.... but what about all the customers who had to pay higher prices for funeral services as a direct result of the funeral homes wasting money by employing unnecessary workers?

Click to expand...

I suggest you are indulging yourself in a bit of "wishful thinking".

A market-economy is a meeting-place between consumers and sellers; and no more nor any less. There are, for sure, certain rules to be observed, but any rule determining pricing is subject only to legislation regarding trade (as in Federal Trade Commission). The FTC is responsible for determining "dominant market position", where prices are "influenced" by the predominance of one or a group of suppliers.

But, you are speaking to "benefit" in terms of employment-security by means of "higher cost", which is anathema in a market-economy. The cost of goods/services is determined by only one rule, that the market is fair and functional.

Mind you, in recent times, there has been a significant concentration of market forces. Over the past 2/3 decades there has been an "orgy of buyouts", which has significantly lessened competition, and too my mind instituted "sticky pricing" amongst reduced competitors. It is doubtful if there has been any real advantage to consumer-pricing from market consolidation.

Saving jobs is not per se a priority of public-policy. In a dynamic economy, it is just a "good idea" where possible. But assuring that individuals have the credentials to change-jobs in markets that are changing is indeed a national priority.

And, to my mind, this means that "education and training" should be a life-long governmental provision. People must have the means to change professions, rather than stagnate within markets that are changing/evolving under their feet. And those means should be provided by the government.

At the very least, the cost of such educational services will offset somewhat the expenditure upon national Unemployment Insurance. People who have the professional credentials to change jobs would spend less time unemployed.

Now whether someone would want to change jobs willingly is an altogether different question. For the present, our market-economy is not sufficiently flexible to allow that freedom on a large-scale ...

Lafayette said:

The Constitution is an excellent document, a precursor in its day. But that was long, long time ago.

The world we live in, and the expectations we make of it, are no longer the same as the days in which it was conceived. Its first and foremost concern 240 years ago was the independence of themselves confronted by a royalty that made them subservient. That condition no longer exists in almost any modern, developed economy today.

In fact, the major concern should be not as regards taxation per se, but what taxation should accomplish. And having the mightiest army on earth is not the sort of primordial necessity today. (So why does it employ so much of the national budget?)

In fact, we have a society that is based upon Civil Law. To be precise, civil law tends to defend and protect personal property, whatever "belongs" to us be it our lives or our property. Historically, this was the constant in terms of defining "rights".

Elsewhere, however, another "front" was opening. That of Societal (or Social) Rights. Which is based upon the fact that we have established market-economies in which we individuals have two roles - one in the production of goods and services and another in the consumption of goods/services. We think of ourselves in terms of the society within which, based upon a market-economy, we therefore work and thrive.

In this context, the onus of societal rights become more important since they are based upon fairness and equitability. No one should be abused personally for the profit of another, either of their right to work or to work at a decent wage. We are not all equal in terms of our capacities, so clearly there are differentials in wages. The key therefore is not equality of income, but its equitability. Equity is based upon the ability to be fair and impartial.

Which means what?

It means that we all work, some harder than others, some with more proficiency (in results) than others. But our commonality as both producers and consumers are the keystones of the market-economy. It should define the limits either below which or beyond which no person should be allowed to either suffer from inequity or profit from superiority.

Which is why the taxation of income is an integral part of any code of law that defines the the lower and upper bounds of what is fair and right ... and that which is not.

When that particular code is despoiled by unfair taxation, then Income Disparity rears its ugly head - and a nation becomes one where only 10% of all workers earn almost 50% of all income generated by a market-economy ...

Which characterizes perfectly the inequity of the American economy today ...

Click to expand...

First, I don't even think you live in the US, second, its beyond foolish to think that progress is granting a Govt the power and authority to be the ultimate arbiter of what's " fair and equitable ".

Not only is it foolish its about as un-American as you can get. Since I sincerely doubt you're a American I wouldn't expect you to understand the fundamental concepts that made this Nation exceptional.

PERSONAL WELL-BEING

From Angus Deaton, Nobel Prize, 2015, as heard in a seminar: "Beyond 75,000 dollars, an increase in income does not ameliorate the capacity of individuals to do what counts most for their emotional well-being."

For an expansion upon the idea, see this Time Magazine article: Do We Need $75,000 a Year to Be Happy?

Excerpt: "The study, by economist Angus Deaton and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, who has won a Nobel Prize for Economics, analyzed the responses of 450,000 Americans polled by Gallup and Healthways in 2008 and 2009. Participants were asked how they had felt the previous day and whether they were living the best possible life for them. They were also asked about their income.

The authors found that most Americans — 85% — regardless of their annual income, felt happy each day. Almost 40% of respondents also reported feeling stressed (which is not mutually exclusive with happiness) and 24% had feelings of sadness. Most people were also satisfied with the way their life was going."

The original study report, by Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton: High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being

Excerpt:"Recent research has begun to distinguish two aspects of subjective well-being. Emotional well-being refers to the emotional quality of an individual’s everyday experience—the frequency and intensity of experiencesjoy, stress, sadness, anger, and affection that make one’s life pleasant or unpleasant. Life evaluation refers to the thoughts that people have about their life when they think about it. We raise the question of whether money buys happiness, separately for these two aspects of well-being. We report an analysis of more than 450,000 responses to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, a daily survey of 1,000 US residents conducted by the Gallup Organization. We find that emotional well-being (measured by questions about emotional experiences yesterday) andlife evaluation (measured by Cantril’s SelfAnchoring Scale) have different correlates. Income and education are more closely related to life evaluation, but health, care giving, loneliness, and smoking are relatively stronger predictors of dily emotions.

When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily. Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of about $75,000. Low income exacerbates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, ill health, and being alone. We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being."

Fenton said:

... its beyond foolish to think that progress is granting a Govt the power and authority to be the ultimate arbiter of what's " fair and equitable ".

Click to expand...

Of course it isn't if that government was elected by the people. It seems you also have a warped sense of what constitutes a "democracy".

Fenton said:

Not only is it foolish its about as un-American as you can get.

Click to expand...

Here we go again, "The pot calling the kettle black". (Sarcasm becomes you so! We are ALL on the same burner, haven't you noticed?)

That worked a long, long time ago. But not nowadays.

Put your thinking-cap on. You're in an economics debate forum ...